Subscribe to this blog

Follow by Email

The Banana: Proof of Atheism!

I'm kind of busy this week, so I asked our recurring fundy atheist punching bag, I. M. Skeptical, to write me a post about the best argument for atheism he could come up with. Here's what he gave me.

**

There was once a slimy, snotty Christian apologist
who made the argument that the banana is an “atheist’s worst nightmare”
because it has so many great design features. I used to love that
argument when I was a stupid, blind fundy, and now as an intellectually
fulfilled atheist I think it is really stupid! In fact, I want to argue now that if anything, the banana proves that God does not exist, or that if he does, he is evil, malevolent, and really snotty! Here’s why:

The banana has a slippery peel which can be thrown on the ground, causing innocent people to slip and fall. The
banana has been used for endless, cruel practical jokes (especially on
me, and I have the bruises on my butt to prove it!) and this would only
be a feature designed by a malevolent creator, or else it would have
evolved in a godless, uncaring universe. If there was a God, he would
have created trash cans everywhere with targeting vacuum suctions to
keep people from using banana peels for practical jokes.

The banana comes in bunches, making it an especially vulnerable target for shoplifters.
With many fruits, you can only steal one at a time, but bananas have
been an unusual burden on the merchants of the world because they can be
grabbed in large bunches. (I know that grapes and cherries, for
example, are even worse; but these are yet more proof of either a
malevolent creator or a godless universe.)

The banana has an unusual shape which makes it a special target for filthy double entendres. To put it bluntly, the banana is a pornographic fruit! Only a god who was a disgusting pervert
could design a piece of fruit this way. The banana also encourages
violence because you can hide it under your coat and pretend it is a
handgun; or in Australia, you can use it as a boomerang. The banana is a
fruit for perverts and criminals.

Bananas have an ugly yellow color and turn an even uglier brown or black when they spoil.
What’s worse, they smell terrible when they go bad, and get all squishy
and disgusting! That they turn brown or black when they go bad has also
undoubtedly contributed to the problem of racism in this country.

“Banana” is spelled real stupid.
You can’t keep track of how many “nas” to add, and it’s a real pain in
the butt! A loving god would make sure there’d be no confusion, or
wasted ink and paper, as a result of adding to many “nas.”

So
as you can see, if anything, the banana is prime evidence that if any
God exists, he is a mean, nasty, disgusting, stupid, and pathetic moron!
And if you don’t agree, you’re a snotty idiot and I don’t want to hear
it!

Anonymous I don[t see Skep making any argument other than that JP his making parody, In this head anyway. What if it is a parody? Nothing wrong with that they are a valid from of creationism. It is far from the case that that is all he does,he's actually one of the best researchers and question answer men in apologetic. His arguments are fine, He;s multi-talented and capable of being hysterically funny while drowning home a serious point. His wit shot the late Ashyra S down in flames.

I know all about JP I've known since 2000. I know his real name and I know about him than you do. I know he has done a lot of good research and argumentation n the faith. Along the way he's made a lot of bad puns.

Skep people on the net say a lot of things about you, they say a lot of things about me.I know the stuff they say about me is 99% bull shit. I assume a large part of what thy say about you and about JP is bull shit too. This blog is NOT about personalities.

His name is Robert Turkel, as I understand it. JP used to hide his real name until he was outed, and then he claimed he didn't care. He was also outed for posting under various other false identities. Check out The Anointed One, or some of the articles that I've referenced.

Again, IMS is actually a parody of a fundy atheist. A pretty clever one, as can be seen by his post and his headfirst dump into the Turkel Trap. Very few are actually stupid enough to bring that up any more.

I love Skep's parable of the banana. Why? Because it draws it's inspiration from the exact same neurological well of irrepressible and fertile human imagination and unbounded creativity, that very same well out of which Gods [of all descriptions, permutations and commutations], resurrecting corpses, levitating bodies eternally floating out there somewhere in the blue beyond, talking snakes, walking on water were spawned; a veritable smorgasbord of delightful and highly creative selections from around the world.

And like our evolutionary proclivity for imagining the presence of disembodied, putatively live non-corporeal entities, both Gods and ghosts, [poltergeists and other things that go bump in the night] with which we can apparently communicate and socialize with across the supernatural divide, along with imagining bananas in pyjamas, it is all harmless, fun stuff, unless you believe it.

That is the beauty of Skep's parable. It characterises how evidentially tenuous and insubstantial the belief in Gods really is. Just as you reject the Hindu God Ganesha, so too must you reject the Abrahamic god to be philosophically consistent and intellectually rigorous. To not do so, is to espouse gratuitous bias.

come on Skep,stop lying, you have not read one mother fucking study,not one, you have no idea what they say. You seek to convey the impression that they have to say "God exits"or they can't say anything of value that is stupid, it is stupidity,. try connecting your brain.

I've explained several times how they back my arguments, you know nothing about argument. when you connectyour brain and deal with the specific arguments I'made I'll talk about it.stop wasting my time with your your little lying gimmick.

Joe, you've posted extensive information about your arguments, and even some of the studies you cite, and I've read all that stuff. I know how you think they back your arguments, but I also know that these studies don't justify the unscientific conclusions you draw from them.

m-skeptical said...Joe, you've posted extensive information about your arguments, and even some of the studies you cite, and I've read all that stuff. I know how you think they back your arguments, but I also know that these studies don't justify the unscientific conclusions you draw from them.

you are wrong, my work was checked by the the leading researchers, they all agreed it;s good, Hood endorsed the book,I can tell my the ignorant way you talk about it you don't knowing what you are doing. you are just fantasizing, your research and Trump's wire taps,

Joe, a study that correlates spiritual experiences with positive behaviors does not provide justification (or warrant) for belief in God. I don't claim that these studies are wrong. But you claim they prove something that they don't prove at all. You are stretching to reach these conclusions without any valid basis.

yes it does, you are not answering my argument you are asserting that because you can't understand it, it can't be right.you are limiting truth to your understanding, you also tacitly admit you lied because it turns out you do not have any evidence the studies are wrong

JBsptfnThe scope of your comment signifies a profound lack of knowledge on the scope and depth of the research literature that abounds in the areas of the contemporary history of religion and religious beliefs, the sociology of religion, the anthropological and cultural determinants of religion and religious belief, notwithstanding the rapidly expanding areas of neuroscientific specialisms more broadly, the active on-going research into the evolutionary origins of religion, along with many other exploratory and expository studies that have literally lifted the explanatory lid not only on the origin and existence of, but the rationale for and the evolutionary foundations of religion and religious belief throughout all cultures and peoples. Even at the popular level such as, HERE and HERE, there is much significant information that these areas of research are confirming a consistent narrative which shows no evidence of a interventionist hand of god, supernatural or otherwise.

"Even at the popular level such as, HERE and HERE, there is much significant information that these areas of research are confirming a consistent narrative which shows no evidence of a interventionist hand of god, supernatural or otherwise."

BS! that assumes that miraculous intervention is the only reason for belief in god, tyat is just nonsense, argument from current book backed by the 200 studies

(1) Argument from universal nature of mystical experience.New

Empirical studies show that the kind of religious experience known as "mystical" is universal. The names and doctrinal ideas are different but the experiences are the same. Yet the experiences should not be the same since religion is cultural. Religious symbols are cultural. Atheists have countered this argument by saying that religion is genetic, but there is no basis for saying that religion genetic.

from book coming this Fall

(2) TS argument

1. Any rational, coherent, and meaningful view of the universe must of necessity presuppose organizing principles (Ops)2. OP'ssummed up in TS3. Modern Thought rejects TS's 4. Therefore, Modern thought fails to provide a rational, coherent, and meaningful view of the universe.5. minds organize and communicate meaning

Nothing in evolution of religious ideas that indicates no God or that gives reason not to believe in God,. Here is my account of the evolution of the God concept treated in such a way that justifies belief in God.

Empirical studies show that the kind of religious experience known as "mystical" is universal. The names and doctrinal ideas are different but the experiences are the same. Yet the experiences should not be the same since religion is cultural. Religious symbols are cultural. Atheists have countered this argument by saying that religion is genetic, but there is no basis for saying that religion genetic.

What a pile of crap. Your so-called "mystical experience" is just part of a broad category of experiences that are common to mankind. Maslow calls them peak experiences. And the studies you cite tell you that. They also emphasize that the religious interpretation of these experiences is NOT universal. How do I know this? I read what they said. But you choose to ignore the fact that many of these experiences have no religious significance at all. Yes, it is genetic. It's something that is common to our species.

Why is JBsptfn always engaging in gratuitous personal attacks? There are all kinds trolls and scumbags on the internet. This guy pops up at sites where Papalinton hasn't even visited, and starts his trolling and slinging accusations out of the blue. What a piece of work.

JBsptfnThe Wiki articles were chosen simply for your benefit as an intro to the world of enlightening research in this area. If you want, you could start with a book I have in from of me at this moment by Associate Prof Jesse Bering, "The God Instinct". It really is a scintillating read into the mechanics of god belief. In fact any book from these researchers, Pascal Boyer, Scott Atran, Jason Slone, Justin Barrett, Amin Geetz, will certainly place you among the leaders in research in this field. I would also encourage others here to read widely. We are truly an amazing species.

What a pile of crap. Your so-called "mystical experience" is just part of a broad category of experiences that are common to mankind. Maslow calls them peak experiences. And the studies you cite tell you that.

How does being part of a abroad category of experience mean that it is not the result of divine encounter? Just being a broad category in no way rules out divine origin.

They also emphasize that the religious interpretation of these experiences is NOT universal. How do I know this? I read what they said.

(1) who is "they?"(2) you are contradicting yourself, first say it's a broad category then you say it's not universal, if it's a broad category that would mean it.s somewhat near universal and that implies it's not divine, being common to all traditions.. two contradictions, it woudl be universal if it's a broad category, your implication is that being broad means it's not divine, but here you say it's not universal meaning it's not divine.(3) if "they" means Maslow he was studying this before the M scale research was done, Hood is the only one with the data on the expertness themselves,His work proves the experience is universal,

Maslow thought that there was a transcendent reality in archtypes he thought that all religious people and atheists atheists were tied into that reality,We can think of that as God in a general sense,he said religious people nad atheists can go a very long way together down the same path, they will have to diverge eventually but they can go along way together,

the universal nature is evidence of divine because religious experiences are not genetic and have to be culturally constructed, so they should not be universal.

But you choose to ignore the fact that many of these experiences have no religious significance at all. Yes, it is genetic. It's something that is common to our species.

no there is ho evidence it is genetic. I quoted the major expert, M scale research. the actual experiences are the same and the way deal with then are the seam.Also Atheists are just relabeling their experience s to avoid the obvious connection to god

apalinton said...JBsptfnThe Wiki articles were chosen simply for your benefit as an intro to the world of enlightening research in this area. If you want, you could start with a book I have in from of me at this moment by Associate Prof Jesse Bering, "The God Instinct". It really is a scintillating read into the mechanics of god belief. In fact any book from these researchers, Pascal Boyer, Scott Atran, Jason Slone, Justin Barrett, Amin Geetz, will certainly place you among the leaders in research in this field. I would also encourage others here to read widely. We are truly an amazing species.

that researches totally bogus,l the major experts have waned against infotainment research atheists use, it;s just based upon your ideological assumptions no facts involved,Pascal Boyer is not an expert in genetics, you have not answered the researched I limnked to shoing tha the assupoitoms you make don otdisprove god.

you should read this in the previous link to get the full effect bit since they seem to igore my links.

1: no basis for religious gene

Blakmore himself tells us that our brains "light up" (respond by beginning to work more) when we hear God talk. That's really the basic idea, along with the universality issue, of proving a God gene. But that is not proof of a gene.

There are plenty of scientists who do not think that religion is an adaptation. The adaptations it view is one school, it is not a done deal. The counter argument among evolutionary theorists is that religion is a “spandrel” or a side effect of genetic structure but not produced by a gene for that behavior. There are plenty of scientists who disagree with the data on the “God pod” and don’t believe that there is a “God module” or that religious behavior is inherited through a specific gene or a part of the brain. Lee A Kirkpatrick, director of graduate studies in psychology at William and Mary, tells us:

"In sum, the moderate habitability of religion, like the identification of a particular brain region, associated with religious experience, tells us virtually nothing about weather religion is the result of an adaptive evolved mechanism designed to produce it. In particular neither should be construed as evidence for an adaptive religion mechanism or system."[10][10]Lee A Kirckpatrick, “Religion is Not An Adaptation,” in Where God and Science Meet: How Brain and Evolutionary Studies Alter Our Understanding of Religion Vol I: Evolution, Genes, and Religious Brainm .Patrick McNamara (ed). London, Westport Connecticut: Praeger. 2006. 159-180, 164.Kirckpatrick is associate professor of psychology at William and Mary.]

According to Kirkpatrick it's way too early to claim there's a God Gene. There's no way to sort out that it's a real gene or just a combination of other genetic traits. Even if there is such a gene that is not a defeat for religion.

One of the main problems with arguing for a God gene is that the kinds of explanations often used to justify it are piecemeal and don't work in terms of genetic theory. For example a common one is cooperation. Religion makes people more cooperative. So people cooperate and that is why they adapt becuase it's an advantage. Or gives hope it gets them through the winter.

Considerable debate has surrounded the question of the origins and evolution of religion. One proposal views religion as an adaptation for cooperation, whereas an alternative proposal views religion as a by-product of evolved, non-religious, cognitive functions. We critically evaluate each approach, explore the link between religion and morality in particular, and argue that recent empirical work in moral psychology provides stronger support for the by-product approach. Specifically, despite differences in religious background, individuals show no difference in the pattern of their moral judgments for unfamiliar moral scenarios. These findings suggest that religion evolved from pre-existing cognitive functions, but that it may then have been subject to selection, creating an adaptively designed system for solving the problem of cooperation.[11]Ilkka Pyysiäinen and Marc Hauser, "The Origins of Religion: Evolved Adaption or by Product." Science Direct: Trends in Cognitive Science, Volume 14, Issue 3, (March 2010), 104-109. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364661309002897

That sort of makes one think of genes as little guys holding committee meetings in your head and planning strategy. If it's that cut and dried why not just make a gene for cooperation and cut out the religious mumbo jumo? If it's just an alteration of existing function, then individual conscious decisions may be involved after all. Or, were we provided those functions that we might discover God? The kinds of explainations that require a purpose are counter to the nature of adaptation anyway. As Kirkpatrick explains:

"Natural selection is blind to purely psychological effects because being happy in itself does not cause more copies of happiness causing genes to dominate subsequent generations."[12] ]Kirckpatric Op cit, 167.

They can't show adaptability because they can't show it enhances gene frequency. After all some aspects of religion counter to gene frequency such as celibacy?

But the evolutionary perspective on religion does not necessarily threaten the central position of either side. That religious behavior was favored by natural selection neither proves nor disproves the existence of gods. For believers, if one accepts that evolution has shaped the human body, why not the mind too? What evolution has done is to endow people with a genetic predisposition to learn the religion of their community, just as they are predisposed to learn its language. With both religion and language, it is culture, not genetics, that then supplies the content of what is learned.[13]Nicholas Wade, "The Evolution of the God Gene," New York Times: Week in Review. Nov 14 (2009). On line http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/15/weekinreview/12wade.html?_r=1&accessed 10/29/13Nicholas Wade is a science reporter who writes about genetics.

So the explainations fall apart, the big coincidence is looming: the thing the atheists and evolutionary psychologists hate the most and seek to destroy with their worship of science is the one best answer to why there would be a gene for God: God put it there. It's counter to the nature of adaptation. Genes can't contrive to plan how to make us more cooperative or give us warm fuzzies to get us through the winter. The nature of adaptation is not a committee of homunculi that seeks to make human life happier and more efficient. Nor can genes understand concepts. We are not born with innate knowledge, that has been considered a primitive and false concept since the seventeenth century. We are born with instincts but that is not the same as innate knowledge. Evolution cannot plant ideas in our minds. So our brains reacting to God talk as they do is totally unexplained and constitutes a good reason to take as a hint the basic idea of a God designed aspect of human nature.

Andrew Newberg, one of the pioneers in researching neural activity of religious experience and God talk tells us that none of the research disproves God, in fact it can't.

"…Tracing spiritual experience to neurological behavior does not disprove its realness. If God does exist, for example, and if He appeared to you in some incarnation, you would have no way of experiencing His presence, except as part of a neurologically generated rendition of reality. You would need auditory processing to hear his voice, visual processing to see His face, and cognitive processing to make sense of his message. Even if he spoke to you mystically, without words, you would need cognitive functions to comprehend his meaning, and input form the brain’s emotional centers to fill you with rapture and awe. Neurology makes it clear: there is no other way for God to get into your head except through the brain’s neural pathways. Correspondingly, God cannot exist as a concept or as reality anyplace else but in your mind. In this sense, both spiritual experiences and experiences of a more ordinary material nature are made real to the mind in the very same way—through the processing powers of the brain and the cognitive functions of the mind. Whatever the ultimate nature of spiritual experience might be—weather it is in fact an actual perception of spiritual reality—or merely an interpretation of sheer neurological function—all that is meaningful in human spirituality happens in the mind. In other words, the mind is mystical by default."[14]Andrew Newberg, Why God Won’t God Away: Brain Science and the Biology of Belief. (New York, Ballentine Books), 2001, 37,

This article is a good indication of how ideologically laden the internet is with ideological babble from a social movement that seeks to destroy all forms of knowledge that it does not control. There is no basis for the assertion that neuroscience is destroying religion and yet scientism proclaims itself victorious over all religion merely becuase it exists. At the same time sound reasons exists in the same material assumed to destroy religion which supports beilef in God yet that possibility is totally ignored.

case in poimnt his secomnd wiki that he linked to says "This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (February 2011) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)"

I suggest that evolutionary nature of religion in and of itself is not enough to rule out God,After all if God uses evolution in creation then we should expect God to allow evolutionary nature of religion to shape human development. Here is my article (part 1) showing how the evolutionary nature of religious development is not contrary to God.

How does being part of a abroad category of experience mean that it is not the result of divine encounter? Just being a broad category in no way rules out divine origin.- It doesn't. What it says is that these experiences are not all religious in nature.

(1) who is "they?"- The authors of a couple of articles that YOU cited as part of your research, and YOU said "You need to read this". If I get the time, I'll go back and find the name.

(2) you are contradicting yourself, first say it's a broad category then you say it's not universal, if it's a broad category that would mean it.s somewhat near universal and that implies it's not divine, being common to all traditions.. two contradictions, it woudl be universal if it's a broad category, your implication is that being broad means it's not divine, but here you say it's not universal meaning it's not divine.- Can't you read? I said the peak experience is universal, but the religious aspect of it is NOT universal. And that's exactly what those studies said. YOU are contradicting the studies cited in your own work. They don't make the same claims you do. You really need to work on your reading comprehension.

(3) if "they" means Maslow he was studying this before the M scale research was done, Hood is the only one with the data on the expertness themselves,His work proves the experience is universal,- No. I only mentioned Maslow because he famously referred to these experiences a "peak experiences" rather than "mystical experiences". But there was discussion about thin in the papers you cited. It said they only use the term "mystical experience" because that was common terminology, but the universal aspect of it was specifically NOT religious. How can you cite material like this without paying attention to what they say? You are only using the parts that you like, and ignoring the rest. That's called cherry-picking.

the universal nature is evidence of divine because religious experiences are not genetic and have to be culturally constructed, so they should not be universal.- No. That was part of your argument that I rebutted before. Your argument states that because the experience is ABOUT the divine, then it MUST BE divine. That does not follow by any valid logic. Your argument is not valid.

Bla, bla, bla ... (another eleven comments rambling on and on and on and on)- I don't have the time to respond to your flood of comments. This is WL Craig's approach to debate. Inundate your opponent with so many claims and arguments that he can't possibly answer them all. I don't have time right now.

1) who is "they?"- The authors of a couple of articles that YOU cited as part of your research, and YOU said "You need to read this". If I get the time, I'll go back and find the name.

I don't remember it but just being part of a broad category proves nothing one way or the other.

(2) you are contradicting yourself, first say it's a broad category then you say it's not universal, if it's a broad category that would mean it.s somewhat near universal and that implies it's not divine, being common to all traditions.. two contradictions, it woudl be universal if it's a broad category, your implication is that being broad means it's not divine, but here you say it's not universal meaning it's not divine.

- Can't you read? I said the peak experience is universal, but the religious aspect of it is NOT universal. And that's exactly what those studies said. YOU are contradicting the studies cited in your own work. They don't make the same claims you do. You really need to work on your reading comprehension.

I answered that. The dichotomy of religious or non-religious is a false dichotomy, They all pertain to the ground of being.the vast majority of mystical experiences pertain to God.

(3) if "they" means Maslow he was studying this before the M scale research was done, Hood is the only one with the data on the expertness themselves,His work proves the experience is universal,- No. I only mentioned Maslow because he famously referred to these experiences a "peak experiences" rather than "mystical experiences".

that comes to same thing, Maslow was atheist but he was not not anti-religious,

But there was discussion about thin in the papers you cited. It said they only use the term "mystical experience" because that was common terminology, but the universal aspect of it was specifically NOT religious. How can you cite material like this without paying attention to what they say? You are only using the parts that you like, and ignoring the rest. That's called cherry-picking.

show me the paper, i think you are mixed up, you are misinterpretation something,

the universal nature is evidence of divine because religious experiences are not genetic and have to be culturally constructed, so they should not be universal.

- No. That was part of your argument that I rebutted before. Your argument states that because the experience is ABOUT the divine, then it MUST BE divine. That does not follow by any valid logic. Your argument is not valid.

Bla, bla, bla ... (another eleven comments rambling on and on and on and on)

- I don't have the time to respond to your flood of comments. This is WL Craig's approach to debate. Inundate your opponent with so many claims and arguments that he can't possibly answer them all. I don't have time right now.

3/22/2017 09:38:00 AM Delete

that how argument works my friend, you have to answer all the arguments or you lose then,show me the article thatI showed you tha you claims idipswor ves my argument,

my argument assumes that naturalistic Causes are negated, they are,Ihvedispro ed them

You've disproved naturalistic causes? I think you should inform the scientific community about this. This is big news. I mean, really, really big news. You have accomplished something that all philosophy and all of science in the history of mankind has been unable to do.

Popular posts from this blog

A visitor to the CADRE site recently sent a question about Paul's statement in Acts 20:35 which records Paul as saying, "And remember the words of the Lord Jesus, that He said, 'It is better to give than to receive'." The reader wanted to know where Jesus said this. This was my answer:

You are correct in noting that this saying of Jesus quoted by Paul is not found anywhere in the four Gospels. My own study Bible says "This is a rare instance of a saying of Jesus not found in the canonical Gospels."

Does the fact that it isn't stated in the Gospels mean that it isn't reliably from the lips of Jesus? I don't think so. The Apolstle John said at the end of his Gospel (John 21:25): "Jesus did many other things as well.If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written." Obviously, this is exaggeration for the sake of making a point, but it means that Jesus di…

A couple of months ago, I wrote a post about the Gospel of Matthew’s account of the slaughter of the innocents. Therein, I argued that some of the skepticism about the account was unjustified. One argument I made was that the number of children killed in Bethlehem would likely have been no more than 20. Though obviously an act of great evil, the killing of 20 children would be much less likely to be noticed by historians of the time than the slaughter of thousands as later traditions speculated.

In response to the post, Peter Kirby asked a few questions. He has patiently waited my response, continuously delayed by work, family, and the completion of my Acts article. Two of the questions had to do with how the amount of 20 was determined. Others with the omission of the account by Luke and the reliability of the tradition recounted by Macrobius. Peter also mentioned that there were other reasons to doubt the story's historicity beyond just the silence of other sources. I h…

As we approach Martin Luther King Jr. Day, I have been thinking about U2’s song Pride (In the Name of Love) (hereinafter, "Pride"). The song, of course, concerns MLKJr. (According to U2 Sermons, U2 formerly ran a video of MLKJr giving his “I have been to the mountaintop” speech during the playing of the song.) However, the lyrics of Pride are quite apparently not exclusively about MLKJr.

John Lennox is a wonderful spokesman for Christianity. In many ways, he is the one Christian apologist who has acquired the mantle of C.S. Lewis in the way that he is able to take points that are sometimes difficult for those unfamiliar with thinking about Christianity and reduces them to simple arguments using metaphors and examples that anyone can understand.

Since it is the Christmas season, I thought it worthwhile to point a video by Dr. Lennox entitled "Christmas for Doubters." In the video, he responds to the idea that the early Christians believed in the Virgin Birth because they were too ignorant to understand how babies were conceived. Rather, by comparing the accounts of the birth of Jesus with the birth of John the Baptist, Dr. Lennox shows that those who wrote the Gospels understood that the authors of the Gospels did have an understanding of where babies come from, but that they understood that the births of both Jesus and John the Baptist were outside of ordin…

It is understandable that naturalistic thinkers are uneasy with the concept of miracles. So should we all be watchful not to believe too quickly because its easy to get caught up in private reasons and ignore reason itself. Thus has more than one intelligent person been taken by both scams and honest mistakes. By the the same token it is equally a danger that one will remain too long in the skeptical place and become overly committed to doubting everything. From that position the circular reasoning of the naturalist seems so reasonable. There’s never been any proof of miracles before so we can’t accept that there is any now. But that’s only because we keep making the same assumption and thus have always dismissed the evidence that was valid. At this point most atheists will interject the ECREE issue (or ECREP—extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, or “proof”). That would justify the notion of remaining skeptical about miracle evidence even when its good. The…

Lately, I have been listening to a series of lectures by Hubert Dreyfus, Ph.D., a Philosophy professor at U.C. Berekley, concerning the writings of Soren Kierkegaard. The lecture has been very interesting, and while I think that Professor Dreyfus has some questionable interpretations of the Bible, his discussions have given me a greater understanding of Kierkegaard's view of faith. Most importantly, it has helped me clarify in my own mind the use of the illustration of a Knight of Faith and the example of Abraham and Isaac.

The Two Knights of Kierkegaard

Kierkegaard, the great Danish philosopher of the 19th Century, can be considered the father of modern existentialism. In his work Fear and Trembling, he wrote about the difference between two types of people whom he called the Knight of Infinite Resignation and the Knight of Faith. In Fear and Trembling, , Kierkegaard identifies Abraham as a Knight of Faith. In his lectures, however, I get the sense that Professor Dreyfus, who I ac…

[Introductory note from Jason Pratt: the previous entry in this series of posts can be found here. The first entry can be found here.]

Having explained why, as a Christian, I do not hold to what many people (Christian and sceptic) have considered the 'party line' that reason and faith are mutually exclusive, I will now explore this issue from a deeper philosophical perspective.

A Christian (or other religious theist) who accepts a faith/reason disparity will usually do so for religious reasons. His argument that these two aspects must be mutually exclusive (or at least need not have anything to do with each other) will be grounded on positions and presumptions which usually proceed from a devout loyalty to God's status, or from authority of specifically religious leaders, or from the structure of religious ritual, or some combination thereof.

And a sceptic who accepts a faith/reason disparity might do so only because, as far as he can tell, his opposition has chosen that grou…

William Lane Craig remains one of the most erudite and knowledgeable of today's Christian philosophers. His book, Reasonable Faith, has remained one of my favorite Apologetics tools because he lays out many of the Christian claims so clearly and cogently that only the most hardened of skeptics dismisses him or his work as being without weight. Certainly, his writings have led many people to turn their hearts toward Jesus.

We are blessed that Dr. Craig maintains a website also called Reasonable Faith with lots of information that can be accessed free of charge to make a case for Christianity. One of the great features of his website includes a question and answer section where Dr. Craig selects questions that have been addressed to him, and he generally provides really good answers that can help inform all Christians' Apologetics efforts. Unfortunately, this blog has not referenced Dr. Craig's work nearly as often as we ought, but I want to focus on one of the questions …

The manger in which Jesus was laid has colored our imagery of Christmas. A manger, "[i]s a feeding-trough, crib, or open box in a stable designed to hold fodder for livestock.” Nelson’s Illustrated Bible Dictionary, page 674. Usually, we associate the manger with the animals in the story of Christmas or with Jesus’ perceived poverty. I have several nativity sets which include the manger, along with barn animals. Although I am a nativity set enthusiast, there is a much deeper meaning in the manger.

The manger is mentioned three times in Luke 2. Mary lays Jesus in the manger, the angels tell the shepherds that they will find the Savior by seeking the baby lying in a manger, and then the shepherds in fact find Jesus lying in a manger. Obviously, the repetitive references to the manger are indicative of its significance in Luke’s narrative. As Bible scholar N.T. Wright comments:

[I]t was the feeding-trough, appropriately enough, which was the sign to the shepherds. It told them whic…

“[What] we have today is worse than ignorance of the Bible. It is contempt for it. Just about anyone who quotes the Bible, let alone says it is the source of his or her values, is essentially regarded as a simpleton who is anti-science, anti-intellectual and sexist.” ~ Dennis Prager, Jewish thinker and nationally syndicated talk show host, from I’m Back, Here’s Where I’ve Been.
There is no question that Christianity in the West is under attack from some in the public square. While Christians are still able to worship as they choose and to follow their faith (as long as they do so in private), one would need to be blind to overlook the effort by some to turn the public perception of Christianity as being backwards, ignorant and responsible for hatred. For example, in May 2011 the Huffington Post, the left-leaning Internet website, published an article entitled If You’re a Christian, Muslim or Jew - You are Wrong by Cenk Uygur wherein Uygur expressed what I cannot doubt is the view of…

Who's Visiting Now

Comments Policy

This blog is open to comments by anyone interested provided: (1) the comments are civil, (2) they are on point, and (3) they do not represent efforts by the comment authors to steer readers to long posts on other websites. Additionally, the CADRE members and management reserve the right to call an end to discussions in the comments section for any reason or for no reason. Once the CADRE member has called the conversation, all further comments are subject to immediate deletion, and the individual commenting may be asked to leave. The members of the CADRE reserve the right to delete any posts that do not adhere to these policies without any further explanation.